Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eversource review forces $200,000 upgrade to Waterbury school rooftop solar plan; council weighs amendment
Summary
After Eversource required a larger transformer, meter relocations and other distribution upgrades at Westside Middle School, city staff estimated roughly $200,000 in additional costs (largely eligible for state reimbursement). The board debated and moved to approve a contract amendment to keep the five‑school rooftop solar program on schedule.
City staff and the city's clean‑energy consultant told the Board of Aldermen that Eversource's interconnection review for planned rooftop solar systems at five schools identified required distribution upgrades at one site that will add cost and schedule complexity.
Michael LeBlanc, director of finance, said the interconnection review flagged removal of an existing transformer and installation of a new, larger transformer in a concrete vault, new wiring and bollards, a new ground grid, and relocation of interior electrical meters to exterior walls at Westside Middle School. He said initial estimates put the additional cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 but that the state grant could reimburse roughly 78.93% of that amount.
Rob Klee, sustainability adviser to the city, said the requirement to move interior meters and upgrade the transformer was imposed by the utility's technical review and that staff negotiated with Eversource for alternatives but were told by the company those upgrades were necessary for this project. Klee said three of the five school interconnection applications had received contingent approvals with no added cost, while Westside triggered the utility’s additional requirements.
LeBlanc said the work will require a two‑day shutdown of power at the school, but staff expected sufficient lead time to complete the outage before students return in the fall. He told councillors the rooftop systems still project a strong return on investment: combined incentive revenue from the five systems is estimated at about $230,000 annually, with a 20‑year projected incentive stream near $4.6 million.
Council members sought details about whether the utility routinely imposes such requirements and whether alternatives were offered. Klee said requirements vary by project and by the individual reviewing engineer at the utility; he called the Westside case an example of a review outcome that, while frustrating, is not atypical for distributed‑generation interconnections.
After discussion, the board considered a contract amendment to cover the additional interconnection work so that the Westside installation could proceed on the state funding timeline. The amendment was taken up by the board at the meeting; staff noted the added city share (after state reimbursement) would be modest relative to the projected benefits of the solar systems.
